providing "no-cost" flight training and the need for a 100 hour. 91-409(b)

Rex Kwan Do

Rex Kwan Do

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 17, 2022
Messages
47
Display Name
Display name:
Rex Kwan Do
I saw a post from 2012 about this topic and rather than reopen that one, I'm starting a new one. I have a scheduled call with an AOPA panel attorney to discuss this later in the week but I thought I might start here to see if anyone knows of an interpretation letter, has done this themselves or has spoken with a FSDO about it.

Scenario 1: You are a CFI who owns your own aircraft (PA28). You want to take some AF ROTC cadets up for a flight while back at your alma mater. They are AFROTC cadets and so everyone of them wants to be a pilot. Can you provide an hour of dual flight instruction (discovery flight) and sign their logbook while not complying with the 100 hour inspection IAW 91.409(b)

Scenario 2: Your nephew wants to learn to fly. You are fond of your nephew so you provide flight instruction at no cost to him since his family doesn't have the means to send him to a traditional flight school. Can you fly him in a combination of flight school aircraft (that you rent) and in your own aircraft (PA28) at no cost to him?

Conditions:
- You are certificated as a CFI, current and proficient.
- You are carrying insurance for providing instruction in your airplane
- You pay all your own costs (fuel, oil, tie-down, meals, hotels etc. etc..)
- You log the time as PIC / Dual Given

Thanks for taking a minute to read and provide an opinion.

For reference:

91.409 Inspections.​


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or
(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.

(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to—
(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness certificate;
(2) An aircraft inspected in accordance with an approved aircraft inspection program under part 125 or 135 of this chapter and so identified by the registration number in the operations specifications of the certificate holder having the approved inspection program;
(3) An aircraft subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section; or
(4) Turbine-powered rotorcraft when the operator elects to inspect that rotorcraft in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
 
If you charge the students anything, then you run afoul of the 100 hour requirement.
If you don't then you don't

Unlike the private pilot remuneration rules, "for hire" involves some sort of tangible payment.
 
flyingron said:
Unlike the private pilot remuneration rules, "for hire" involves some sort of tangible payment.
Click to expand...
I suspect “for hire” means the same thing in both regs, but “compensation” is what can be the intangible payment for the Private Pilot.
 
How long ago was the annual inspection performed and how many hours are on the aircraft since then? If the answer is less than 100 hours you could even do the flights for hire. If not, the others here have answered your question.
 
You say 'have insurance to cover providing instruction in your airplane'
When it comes, I would look at that policy closely to see if it has any details about the pilot or airplane complying with more than just pleasure-use flying regulations.
 
You may be able to skip the 100 hour inspections, but you still have to do any AD inspections required.

Also, from my perspective, say you have an accident with said aircraft and even though no money changed hands, you get sued... how's in gonna look in court if they say "normally aircraft used for flight instruction get this level of maintenance, but this person chose to do less..." I'm not sure I'd want to end up in front of a jury with that being extremely likely to be brought up.

Edited to add: Why do people expend so much effort on trying to do something for nothing, with literally just as much potential liability???
 
RyanShort1 said:
You may be able to skip the 100 hour inspections, but you still have to do any AD inspections required.

Also, from my perspective, say you have an accident with said aircraft and even though no money changed hands, you get sued... how's in gonna look in court if they say "normally aircraft used for flight instruction get this level of maintenance, but this person chose to do less..." I'm not sure I'd want to end up in front of a jury with that being extremely likely to be brought up.

Edited to add: Why do people expend so much effort on trying to do something for nothing, with literally just as much potential liability???
Click to expand...

As opposed to AD inspections needed if you're not doing instruction? :D

Thinking hard about liability is a real joy-eater. I understand it. I usually don't sign the logbook until after we've landed and debriefed (and chewed a delicious Mentos(tm) :D ) . Until then it's a pleasure flight with a bit of "hey wanna take the controls?" -- thinking too hard about the potential lawsuits would spoil my fun. Also my "no clowns" policy has served well so far. I tend not to give rides to jerks. Their wives should be my actual fear. They can fight mine for it if we end up in a smoking hole.
 
The FAA has a pretty broad interpretation of compensation (goodwill, lunch, hours) and if they had meant compensation they would have said “compensation or hire”, like they did 19 other times in Part 91.They only said “for hire” so you don’t need 100 hour inspections.
 
Also, you will need to check the requirements to fly AFROTC cadets. Sometimes those programs (CAP, JRAFROTC) have strict requirements for taking cadets for flights if it is anyway associated with their being cadets.
 
Spoke with the AOPA panel attorney and there are some legal interpretations from the FAA on this. The three part test is
1. Did I provide the airplane
2. Did flight instruction occur
3. Was there compensation -- the "for hire" bit.

Apparently the FAA takes an overly broad, (to the point of comical) definition of 'compensation'. As the panel attorney said "Good feelings could be considered compensation".

Scenario 1: I'd probably be ok but if 'good feelings' is the hurdle to clear, then there is theoretically some risk.
Scenario 2: Lawyer unfamiliar with any case where the FAA went after a family member for providing flight instruction when they are paying all the costs themselves. The panel lawyer said he would feel comfortable providing instruction in this scenario.

So, there you go...from the mouth of the AOPA.
 
Rex Kwan Do said:
As the panel attorney said "Good feelings could be considered compensation".
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the FAA has consistently interpreted this as some potential of return from those good feelings, not the mere fact that good feelings exist.
 
As far as flying some ROTC cadets at your alma mater goes: I would simply not sign any logbooks. The time involved won’t matter to their future one way or the other. The FAA doesn’t care about pleasure flights that just share the joy of flying. Obviously you should carry insurance, but this shouldn’t be anything special. The AFROTC detachment won’t be able to “endorse” this activity for lots of reasons, but that doesn’t mean that current cadets can’t go for a flight with a previous graduate of the program in their spare time. Worst case, they might have to fill out a hazardous activity form at their detachment, but that usually only applies to active duty members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top